Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4    5  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Bottom of the Barrel

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/4/2014 at 08:43 PM
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/4/2014 at 08:51 PM
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




My naivate?
Of the 329 million people who live in the U.S., how many are registered to vote and of that number, how many actually vote?

The pollster in this case in a well recognized and independent.

Your argument would be more valid if you used factual information.


 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4619
(4617 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/4/2014 at 09:28 PM
So all the Republicans are unified that they love Reagan and hate Obama. Shocking! While the Democrats split their love and hate among multiple presidents. Notice Obama is also listed as the 4th best president. Not exactly surprising results, or results that really mean anything.
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/4/2014 at 10:19 PM
There were 130,292,355 votes counted in the 2012 Presidential election.

Does that make my argument less valid?

Have you ever been polled Muleman?

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/4/2014 at 11:22 PM
quote:
quote:
Nor have I ever said America's voters are low-info.



C'mon alloak... for the debate to move forward we need honesty.

I've seen you post many times about low information voters. Were you talking about voters in some other country?


No problem with honesty here...I have posted many times about low information voters as a subset, but I've never said America's voters are low-info. That would be unfair to say and I don't believe that to be true. You see what you want to see, apparently.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/4/2014 at 11:25 PM
quote:
The liberals....do not like the results.
Unable to craft an intelligent response they attack the pollster.



You were expecting something else?

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 01:04 AM
A subset of American voters are still American voters. Every single time you talk about low information voters you are saying American voters are low information.

Words mean stuff.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6177
(6176 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 06:45 AM
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.





Well, that's different. You seem to put a lot of stock in a poll that had a responding base of 9 people. Do you still back up that poll?

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 07:40 AM
quote:
There were 130,292,355 votes counted in the 2012 Presidential election.

Does that make my argument less valid?

Have you ever been polled Muleman?


You are missing the point.
Your post regarding the number of people polled vs. the nation's population is irrelevant.
Pull out a book on statistics and analysis and you see that the number of people polled is just about the right size sample to get an accurate reading.

I am not on the Q-pac polling system. I do participate in the Gallup system.
Generally I do not respond to the heavily biased polls such as The ABC News/Washington Post. Their polls are intentionally crafted to solicite a particular result.


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17361
(17416 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 07:43 AM
quote:
quote:
There were 130,292,355 votes counted in the 2012 Presidential election.

Does that make my argument less valid?

Have you ever been polled Muleman?


You are missing the point.
Your post regarding the number of people polled vs. the nation's population is irrelevant.
Pull out a book on statistics and analysis and you see that the number of people polled is just about the right size sample to get an accurate reading.


This is true.

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 08:36 AM
Nothing Obama has done is worse than ignoring the National Security Czar that a terrorist attack was imminent then lying to the country and the UN to start two pointless wars and getting thousands of people killed then adhering to financial deregulation policies that crash the world economy. There is no way Obama's presidency is worse than the legitimately horrific presidency of George W. Bush.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 08:50 AM
quote:
Nothing Obama has done is worse than ignoring the National Security Czar that a terrorist attack was imminent then lying to the country and the UN to start two pointless wars and getting thousands of people killed then adhering to financial deregulation policies that crash the world economy. There is no way Obama's presidency is worse than the legitimately horrific presidency of George W. Bush.


The American People disagree with you.
But that is cool. You do have a right to express your opinion.
BTW - Republicans will not require you to go stand in a "free speech zone".


 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 08:55 AM
quote:
If you look at the actual poll data in the link at the top, you will see that the people who participated are broken down by party affiliation and gender.

The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.


So were the results of the last Presidential election.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 09:06 AM
quote:
A subset of American voters are still American voters. Every single time you talk about low information voters you are saying American voters are low information.



Some are. Without question.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4733
(4739 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 09:51 AM
quote:
quote:
There were 130,292,355 votes counted in the 2012 Presidential election.

Does that make my argument less valid?

Have you ever been polled Muleman?


You are missing the point.
Your post regarding the number of people polled vs. the nation's population is irrelevant.
Pull out a book on statistics and analysis and you see that the number of people polled is just about the right size sample to get an accurate reading.

I am not on the Q-pac polling system. I do participate in the Gallup system.
Generally I do not respond to the heavily biased polls such as The ABC News/Washington Post. Their polls are intentionally crafted to solicite a particular result.




Although I disagree with several of the comments you've made in this thread, I do agree with you on the sampling size concept. This poll is a reasonable size. It along with most other polls would have a plus & minus factor for its results.

There is another factor that goes into polling, and that is the way the question is asked or the particular wording. The same basic question asked in 2 different ways can result in 2 different answers.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 09:54 AM
quote:
BTW - Republicans will not require you to go stand in a "free speech zone".


WRONG. Wow. Dead wrong.

From Wiki:

quote:
Free speech zones were commonly used by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks and through the 2004 election. Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service, who scouted locations where the U.S. president was scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials targeted those who carried anti-Bush signs and escorted them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters were often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.[3][4] Protesters who refused to go to the free speech zone were often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.[16][17] A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to "willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in ... any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" has also been invoked.[18][19]

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4733
(4739 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 09:54 AM
quote:
quote:
If you look at the actual poll data in the link at the top, you will see that the people who participated are broken down by party affiliation and gender.

The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.


So were the results of the last Presidential election.



We've all seen in many threads you refer to low info voters - particularly when trying to criticize those who voted for or support Obama.

I'm curious where your quantification for this comes from. Can you point us to some source that might drill down to statistics that support this notion? If so, can you provide the breakdown on a party by party basis & include independents as well?

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6177
(6176 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 10:18 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Well, that's different. You seem to put a lot of stock in a poll that had a responding base of 9 people. Do you still back up that poll?



Billy, do you still think we should base the economic future of nations based on a survey of 7 people? You keep referring to it in almost every thread on global warming.
Don't you think that's a very small number to figure 97% of the worlds' scientists on, or are you just being naive?

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 12:21 PM
I guess I'm naive because I don't know what you are talking about.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/5/2014 at 10:24 PM
Jerry - I think you are talking about scientist who agree that global warming is man-made?

I don't know where you get the number 9. Maybe the Beatles White Album?

But this is from NASA. The folks who brought us the Moon landing.

quote:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Human?induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse?gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11


U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12


INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.


OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf


References

1
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

2
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

3
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)

4
ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)

5
Human?Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)

6
Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)

7
Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)

8
APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)

9
GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)

10
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)

11
Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)

12
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

13
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)

14
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)


You do believe we landed on the Moon, don't you?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/6/2014 at 08:46 AM
quote:
I guess I'm naive because I don't know what you are talking about.


I have no clue what he is talking about either undoubtedly something he heard on Fox News or Limbaugh pulled directly from their sphincter. In reality the 97% is based on over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). But hey never let the facts get in the way of a good made up email chain letter.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/6/2014 at 10:10 AM
Enter the Global Warming wack-jobs.

In the mid-1970s the pseudo-“scientists” screamed that the next ice age was upon us. Crops will not grow and everyone will die.
When it didn’t happen, the pseudo-“scientists” went back to groveling for grant money.

Next up was acid rain. Same “we are all going to die” rhetoric.
When it didn’t happen, the pseudo-“scientists” went back to groveling for grant money.

Next up Global Warming.
When the facts didn’t support this scam, they changed the label to Climate Change.
Al Gore and his carbon-credits exchange money con didn’t work.

Yes, the earth’s climate is changing. It has been since the beginning of time. Yes, man’s presents on earth does contribute to climate change. Nobody denies this.

Everybody and their mother’s “committee of”, “agency for” who issue a report in support of this hoax are receiving millions of tax-payer dollars to write these tales by the Al Gore types.
How do you think their reports will read when they are paid to make such conclusions?

Yet there are no credible facts to support impending doom… again. In the last 15 years, NASA and NOAA also report that the earth’s temperature has not changed more than 1 percent.

None of this changes the fact that Obama is the worst President since WWII.

Have a nice day.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/6/2014 at 10:19 AM
quote:
None of this changes the fact that Obama is the worst President since WWII.


So says your very ill-informed opinion.

I hate to be put in a position to defend President Obama. He is far from the ideal that ran for President. But he is not the worst President since WWII.

Of course you think he is a Socialist. What supports that idiotic assertion?

Why has acid rain fallen off the radar? Congress passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act that required reductions in the emissions that cause acid rain. A working Government protected the environment.

But don't let me stop your ill-informed ranting. You have every right to try to bequeath your children and grand children a poisonous environment in which to raise their children. Good on ya! I hope they show their appreciation.

I bet you think nuclear energy is safe as well.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/6/2014 at 11:02 AM
Don't get your panties in a wad son.

The Clean Air Act and The EPA has helped and they were brought to us by a Republican President.

And on your nuclear comment,
In the 1970s, the liberals and environmental wack-jobs all screamed the "we all gonna die" from these nuclear power plants.
How many people have died in the U.S. by nuclear energy?
Don't think about it too hard, the answer is zero.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/6/2014 at 01:19 PM
quote:
And on your nuclear comment,
In the 1970s, the liberals and environmental wack-jobs all screamed the "we all gonna die" from these nuclear power plants.
How many people have died in the U.S. by nuclear energy?
Don't think about it too hard, the answer is zero.


Panties... meet wad.

quote:
Chernobyl disaster[edit]
4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3]
Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[4] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[5] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8]
Fukushima disaster[edit]
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure.
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), released a report on the Fukushima accident April 2nd, 2014. It stated that the scientists have found no evidence to support the idea that the nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011 will lead to an increase in cancer rates or birth defects.
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html
None of the workers at the plant have died from acute radiation poisoning.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/05/25/news/radiation-didnt-cause-fuku shima-no-1-deaths-u-n/#.U2--DyiJvM0
Kyshtym disaster[edit]
The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in the Soviet Union, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident."[9] By contrast, only 6,000 death certificates have been found for residents of the Tech riverside between 1950 and 1982 from all causes of death,[10] though perhaps the Soviet study considered a larger geographic area affected by the airborne plume. The most commonly quoted estimate is 200 deaths due to cancer, but the origin of this number is not clear. More recent epidemiological studies suggest that around 49 to 55 cancer deaths among riverside residents can be associated to radiation exposure.[10] This would include the effects of all radioactive releases into the river, 98% of which happened long before the 1957 accident, but it would not include the effects of the airborne plume that was carried north-east.[11] The area closest to the accident produced 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome, providing the bulk of the data about this condition.[12]
Windscale fire[edit]
33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government)[13][14] – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. Fire ignites plutonium piles and contaminates surrounding dairy farms.[13][14] Windscale was an air-cooled graphite-moderated reactor with no containment structure. A significant contributing factor was that the graphite caught fire.
Other accidents[edit]
17 fatalities – Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, August 2000 – March 2001. Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[15][16]
13 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica, 1996. 114 patients received an overdose of radiation from a Cobalt-60 source that was being used for radiotherapy.[17]
11 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza, Spain, December 1990. Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy; 27 patients were injured.[18]
10 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident, August 10, 1985. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[19]
10 fatalities – Columbus radiotherapy accident, 1974–1976, 88 injuries from Cobalt-60 source.[16][20]
9 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident, 24 May 1968. 83 people were injured.[16]
8 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident, July 4, 1961. More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation.[18]
8 fatalities – Radiation accident in Morocco, March 1984.[21]
7 fatalities – Houston radiotherapy accident, 1980.[16][20]
5 fatalities – Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR, October 5, 1982. 13 injuries.[16]
4 fatalities – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident, August 9, 2004. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe (not actually a radiation accident).[22]
4 fatalities – Goiânia accident, September 13, 1987. 249 people received serious radiation contamination from lost radiotherapy source.[23]
4 fatalities – Radiation accident in Mexico City, 1962.
3 fatalities – SL-1 accident (US Army) 1961.
3 fatalities – Samut Prakan radiation accident: Three deaths and ten injuries resulted when a radiation-therapy unit was dismantled, February 2000.[24]
2 fatalities – Tokaimura nuclear accident, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Japan, September 30, 1999.[25]
2 fatalities - Meet Halfa, Egypt, May 2000; two fatalities due to radiography accident.[26]
1 fatality – Mayapuri radiological accident, India, April 2010.[24]
1 fatality – Daigo Fukury? Maru March 1, 1954
1 fatality – Louis Slotin May 21, 1946
1 fatality – Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., August 21, 1945 at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
1 fatality – Cecil Kelley criticality accident, December 30, 1958 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[27]
1 fatality - Operator error at Wood River Junction nuclear facility, 1964, Rhode Island, Robert Peabody dies 49 hours later
1 fatality – Malfunction INES level 4 at RA2 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, operator Osvaldo Rogulich dies days later.
1 fatality - San Salvador, El Salvador, 1989; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[26]
1 fatality - Soreq, Israel, 1990; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[26]
1 fatality - Tammiku, Estonia, 1994; one fatality from disposed 137Cs source.[26]
1 fatality - Sarov, Russia, June 1997; one fatality due to violation of safety rules.[26]
See also[edit]
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents
Nevada Test Site
Semipalatinsk Test Site
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007, Energy Policy 36 (2008), p. 1806.
Jump up ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 396.
Jump up ^ "IAEA Report". In Focus: Chernobyl. Retrieved 2008-05-31.
Jump up ^ Hallenbeck, William H (1994). Radiation Protection. CRC Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-87371-996-4. "Reported thus far are 237 cases of acute radiation sickness and 31 deaths."
Jump up ^ "Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident". Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts. Retrieved 2011-04-15.
Jump up ^ "Torch: The Other Report On Chernobyl- executive summary". European Greens and UK scientists Ian Fairlie PhD and David Sumner - Chernobylreport.org. April 2006. Retrieved 2011-08-20.
Jump up ^ "The Chernobyl Catastrophe - Consequences on Human Health". Greenpeace. 18 April 2006. Retrieved 15 December 2008.
Jump up ^ Alexey V. Yablokov; Vassily B. Nesterenko; Alexey V. Nesterenko (2009). Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences) (paperback ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-57331-757-3.
Jump up ^ Schlager, Neil (1994). When Technology Fails. Detroit: Gale Research. ISBN 0-8103-8908-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Standring, William J.F.; Dowdall, Mark and Strand, Per (2009). "Overview of Dose Assessment Developments and the Health of Riverside Residents Close to the "Mayak" PA Facilities, Russia". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 6 (1): 174–199. doi:10.3390/ijerph6010174. ISSN 1660-4601. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
Jump up ^ "The Southern Urals radiation studies: A reappraisal of the current status". Journal of Radiation and Environmental Biophysics 41. 2002.
Jump up ^ Gusev, Igor A.; Gus?kova, Angelina Konstantinovna; Mettler, Fred Albert (28 March 2001). Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. CRC Press. pp. 15–29. ISBN 978-0-8493-7004-5. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b Perhaps the Worst, Not the First TIME magazine, May 12, 1986.
^ Jump up to: a b Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 393.
Jump up ^ Investigation of an accidental Exposure of radiotherapy patients in Panama - International Atomic Energy Agency
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Johnston, Robert (September 23, 2007). "Deadliest radiation accidents and other events causing radiation casualties". Database of Radiological Incidents and Related Events.
Jump up ^ Medical management of radiation accidents pp. 299 & 303.
^ Jump up to: a b Strengthening the Safety of Radiation Sources p. 15.
Jump up ^ The Worst Nuclear Disasters
^ Jump up to: a b Ricks, Robert C. et al. (2000). "REAC/TS Radiation Accident Registry: Update of Accidents in the United States". International Radiation Protection Association. p. 6.
Jump up ^ Lost Iridium-192 Source
Jump up ^ Facts and Details on Nuclear energy in Japan
Jump up ^ The Radiological Accident in Goiania p. 2.
^ Jump up to: a b Pallava Bagla. "Radiation Accident a 'Wake-Up Call' For India's Scientific Community" Science, Vol. 328, 7 May 2010, p. 679.
Jump up ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 399.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e István Turai and Katalin Veress (2001, Vol.7. No.1.:3-14). "Radiation Accidents: Occurrence, Types, Consequences, Medical Management, and the Lessons to be Learned". CEJOEM.
Jump up ^ McInroy, James F. (1995), "A true measure of plutonium exposure: the human tissue analysis program at Los Alamos", Los Alamos Science 23: 235–255


quote:
The Clean Air Act and The EPA has helped and they were brought to us by a Republican President.


So because one Republican President signed a bill that was good for the Earth you think now it is OK to ignore clear scientific data about carbon emissions?

Hope your kids are proud.

[Edited on 7/6/2014 by BillyBlastoff]

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 
<<  1    2    3    4    5  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com